On 05/02/16 16:31, Pavel Bondar wrote:
> On 05.02.2016 12:28, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5 February 2016 at 04:12, Armando M. <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 February 2016 at 08:22, John Belamaric
>> <<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 4, 2016, at 11:09 AM, Carl Baldwin <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Pavel Bondar <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >> I am trying to bring more attention to [1] to make final decision
>> on
>> >> approach to use.
>> >> There are a few point that are not 100% clear for me at this
>> point.
>> >>
>> >> 1) Do we plan to switch all current clouds to pluggable ipam
>> >> implementation in Mitaka?
I possibly shouldn't comment at all, as I don't know the history, and
wasn't around when the fundamental design decisions here were being made.
However, it seems a shame to me that this was done in a way that needs a
DB migration at all. (And I would have thought it possible for the
default pluggable IPAM driver to use the same DB state as the
non-pluggable IPAM backend, given that it is delivering the same
semantics.) Without that, I believe it should be a no-brainer to switch
unconditionally to the pluggable IPAM backend.
Sorry if that's unhelpful...
Neil
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
